nun. Early and late Buddhism in India would seem to
have interacted most intensely with non-Buddhists.
But even the most isolated and protected monastic
scholars of the middle period had to take heed of the
thoughts of others, because they might be obliged to
enter into debate with them.
See also:Anatman/Atman (No-Self/Self); Dharma and
Dharmas; India; Jainism and Buddhism; Sarvastivada
and Mulasarvastivada
Bibliography
Biardeau, Madeleine. Le Mahabharata: Un récit fondateur du
brahmanisme et son interprétation,2 vols. Paris: Editions du
Seuil, 2002.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. The Two Traditions of Meditation in An-
cient India,2nd edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1993.
Reprint, 2000.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism,2nd
edition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1998.
Bronkhorst, Johannes. “Die buddhistische Lehre.” In Heinz
Bechert et al., Der Buddhismus I: Der indische Buddhismus
und seine Verzweigungen.Stuttgart, Germany: W. Kohlham-
mer, 2000.
Gombrich, Richard F. How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned
Genesis of the Early Teachings.London and Atlantic High-
lands, NJ: Athlone, 1994.
Goudriaan, Teun; Gupta, Sanjukta; and Hoens, Dirk Jan. Hindu
Tantrism.Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1979.
Oetke, Claus. “Ich” und das Ich: Analytische Untersuchungen zur
buddhistisch-brahmanischen Atmankontroverse. Stuttgart,
Germany: Franz Steiner, 1988.
Ruegg, David Seyfort. “A Note on the Relationship between
Buddhist and ‘Hindu’ Divinities in Buddhist Literature and
Iconology: The Laukika/Lokottara Contrast and the Notion
of an Indian ‘Religious Substratum.’ ” In Le Parole e i Marmi:
Studi in onore di Raniero Gnoli nel suo 70° compleanno,a cura
di Raffaele Torella. Rome: Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e
l’Oriente, 2001.
Sanderson, Alexis. “Vajrayana: Origin and Function.” Buddhism
into the Year 2000: International Conference Proceedings.
Bangkok and Los Angeles: Dhammakaya Foundation, 1994.
Snellgrove, David L. Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists
and Their Tibetan Successors.London: Serindia, 1987.
JOHANNESBRONKHORST
HISTORY
The difference between notions of history in Buddhist
literature and those typical in contemporary secular
culture is evident when one contrasts certain popular
Buddhist narratives with the accounts of modern
scholars. One such contrast concerns the very begin-
ning of Buddhism. Historically, scholars say, Bud-
dhism began with the teaching activity of S ́akyamuni,
the historical Buddha, roughly twenty-five hundred
years ago in northern India. Early Buddhist narratives,
on the other hand, envision a teaching and indeed a
universe with no beginning, say that there were twenty-
four BUDDHASwho appeared before S ́akyamuni, and re-
count that S ́akyamuni himself remembered his
numerous previous lives during the night of his awak-
ening. In the LOTUSSUTRA(SADDHARMAPUNDARIKA-
SUTRA), S ́akyamuni reveals that he is eternal and
universal, appearing over and over again in innumer-
able worlds and communicating the all-inclusive and
superlative teaching that is the subject of this sutra.
Scholars tell us that the Lotus Sutrawas composed
around 200 C.E. as an expression of a sectarian move-
ment that eventually gave rise to distinct schools of
Buddhism, such as the TIANTAI SCHOOLin China in
the 500s and Tendai in Japan in the 800s, as well as the
Japanese NICHIREN SCHOOLin the 1200s. In fact, schol-
arship shows, there is no evidence that any of the dis-
courses were recorded during the lifetime of the
historical Buddha; whatever S ́akyamuni may have
taught, recorded Buddhist teachings were embellish-
ments and often fabrications of his words. What the
scholarly work and traditional narratives have in com-
mon seems only to be a desire to connect their ac-
counts with S ́akyamuni Buddha.
History in its barest sense is a narrative account that
connects the present to the past in anticipation of an
open future. The recognition of the world as a mean-
ingful sequence of events, one leading to another, lends
the word its common double usage: Historymeans
both the events themselves and the account of events.
Modern scholars also use the word historiographyfor
any written accounts of the past, although they some-
times restrict this term to critical accounts that evalu-
ate multiple sources and try to establish “what actually
happened.” Thus historicityrefers to historical factual-
ity or reality, of a person like S ́akyamuni for example.
The naturalistic attitude in modern scholarship differ-
entiates fact from fiction and history from myth or leg-
end. This distinction is not at all obvious in traditional
histories and stories, which often bear witness to tran-
scendent spiritual realities at work in the course of time.
A few scholars contend that Buddhism has no use
for history at all since its doctrines imply that change
over time is inherently meaningless. They see Bud-HISTORY